Ok, let's call it "little purple health care fairies sneak into my bedroom at night to make free bandages out of my paycheck." The point is that it is neither a new nor revolutionary idea that some of us are paying for other people's healthcare.

Yes, some are doing better than others. You know what? I don't think its the healthcare doing them in though. Its not like our dysfunctional system didn't cost enough.

Milo's Mommy said "SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, EDUCATION ETC
meaning a much high level of social programs than the USA. and she said "Their economies are strong, crime rates are low, unemployment is low, they're making strides in education, science, medicine"
NOT ALL IN GREEN meet those grandiose claims, in fact few do.
so which ones in green actually have a strong economy, AND low crime rates AND low unemployment?

this is why the founding fathers weren't huge fans of pure democracy. you're mistaken (unless MN has a law other states don't) the insurance companies do NOT pay for indigents' use of emergency facilities. that is paid for by tax dollars from a federal program. if your insurance company told you that they lied.

To clarify, are you saying that it is illegal for insurance companies to raise premiums to cover the costs of the uninsured? Or are you just saying that they lie about that being the reason they raise premiums? I've been trying to read up on this and I can't find any regulations addressing the former.

i'll do a little for you
here are 4 countries from your map whose economies are dramatically STRONGER than their neighbors or the world in general AND have a but load of social programs in their govt:
switzerland
germany
kuwait
brunei

my matches on the opposite end
argentina just had a naval ship seized by the govt of ghana to be auctioned off & the money will be given to a US creditor company (unless ARG decides to treat it as an act of war and take it back from ghana by force)
greece is collapsing both governemntally and economically
tunisia had it's government overthrown during the arab spring
botswana is engaged in violent persecution of the San bushmen on behalf of debeers

don't get me wrong, social services is the reason for govt in the first place (fire, police etc), and for some CULTURES social programs can be provided w/o adverse effect to the economy or the level of individual liberty they are ACCUSTOMED TO. it's just that in the american culture social programs have RARELY had a positive effect on the economy & almost universally have had an adverse effect on individual liberty.

To clarify, are you saying that it is illegal for insurance companies to raise premiums to cover the costs of the uninsured? Or are you just saying that they lie about that being the reason they raise premiums? I've been trying to read up on this and I can't find any regulations addressing the former.

unless you have a state law requiring the insurance companies pay for uninsured (by definitions NOT their customers), they are lieing. it is paid by taxes (although never in full) by federal programs. someone else had it right that what the govt doesn't pay is often recovered by the medical community raising prices to offset the losses.

unless you have a state law requiring the insurance companies pay for uninsured (by definitions NOT their customers), they are lieing. it is paid by taxes (although never in full) by federal programs.

Ok, I thought you were saying it was illegal for insurance companies to do so. But whether they are lying or not is a matter of opinion, surely? I wouldn't put it past them to lie, but I wouldn't put it past them to essentially work the same technicalities that we are working in this discussion - no, they are not directly paying for the care of the uninsured. But if they are raising premiums in response to higher medical costs, then yes I am indirectly paying for the cost of the uninsured via my premiums. And I'm already paying with my taxes, so... again my original point stands. How is it suddenly a new and revolutionary idea under the current administration worthy of hand-wringing and gnashing of teeth?

Quote:

someone else had it right that what the govt doesn't pay is often recovered by the medical community raising prices to offset the losses.

Well that someone was me, too, but essentially isn't it the same thing simply worded a different way? Because if the medical community raises their prices, then my insurance premiums go up. I stand by my point that the end of the day, I'm paying... and right now I'm paying through taxes AND my premiums. And my taxes and premiums are paying for a very inefficient delivery of healthcare when the uninsured, for example, end up in expensive health crises instead of managing chronic conditions properly all along.

I would love to move to Denmark... my ancestor's homeland. They have socialized medicine & education, amazing people, music programs, animal welfare, AND it's the happiest place on earth! I only wish the US could adapt the same social structure. But I feel like we're too far gone.

As far as the election, I'm happy. Policies aside I feel that Mitt Romney is not a good person - and that's of utmost importance for me. I don't want a scumbag president. After his unbelievably ignorant statements about women and his hilarious dog abuse stories, not to mention his fake, wishy washy, cheeseball personality... no thanks.

Ok, I thought you were saying it was illegal for insurance companies to do so. But whether they are lying or not is a matter of opinion, surely? I wouldn't put it past them to lie, but I wouldn't put it past them to essentially work the same technicalities that we are working in this discussion - no, they are not directly paying for the care of the uninsured. But if they are raising premiums in response to higher medical costs, then yes I am indirectly paying for the cost of the uninsured via my premiums. And I'm already paying with my taxes, so... again my original point stands. How is it suddenly a new and revolutionary idea under the current administration worthy of hand-wringing and gnashing of teeth?

Well that someone was me, too, but essentially isn't it the same thing simply worded a different way? Because if the medical community raises their prices, then my insurance premiums go up. I stand by my point that the end of the day, I'm paying... and right now I'm paying through taxes AND my premiums. And my taxes and premiums are paying for a very inefficient delivery of healthcare when the uninsured, for example, end up in expensive health crises instead of managing chronic conditions properly all along.

we are NOT getting fully social healthcare like canada. the only thing that will change is that your premiums will go up because the insurance companies can't refuse pre-existing conditions. you'll still make up shortfall from the homeless & such (although they might be in prison since they surely won't be buying insurance) w/ your taxes. you'll still be buying health insurance. i have tricare so it won't change anything for me. my primary objection is the individual mandate & the adverse effect it will have on a lot of families barely making. think about this, they can't afford to buy insurance now. they won't be able to afford it after the law takes effect, AND they're going to be fined $2500 by the IRS for not buying it. how precisely is this a benefit to them or anyone?

I would love to move to Denmark... my ancestor's homeland. They have socialized medicine & education, amazing people, music programs, animal welfare, AND it's the happiest place on earth! I only wish the US could adapt the same social structure. But I feel like we're too far gone.

As far as the election, I'm happy. Policies aside I feel that Mitt Romney is not a good person - and that's of utmost importance for me. I don't want a scumbag president. After his unbelievably ignorant statements about women and his hilarious dog abuse stories, not to mention his fake, wishy washy, cheeseball personality... no thanks.